The roles of psychologists can differ quite a bit, depending on the part of the criminal justice system where they are working. For this Assignment, you are to research this topic using your textbook and additional outside resources and write a 2to 3-page paper on your findings. Your paper should:
Identify and describe the psychologists roles within the criminal justice system (i.e., applied scientist, basic scientist, policy evaluator, and advocate).
Provide detailed examples of each of those roles in action within each of the following environments:
Law enforcement
Corrections
Courts system (excluding jury selection)
Be sure to support your answers with material from the Reading and outside research (at least two outside sources from scholarly journal articles, Internet sources, the textbook articles from the Library, and other course material.)
The paper should contain a cover page and a list of references in APA style. All internal citation of outside sources plus the listing of all references should also adhere to APA style.
Sample
The Roles of Psychologists Within the Criminal Justice System
[Student Name]
[Department/School Name], [University Name]
[Course Number and Name]
[Instructor Name]
[Assignment Due Date]
The Roles of Psychologists Within the Criminal Justice System
Psychologists occupy a wide range of positions within the criminal justice system, and the nature of their work shifts considerably depending on whether they are situated in law enforcement, corrections, or the courts. Greene and Heilbrun (2014) describe four broad roles that structure this work: the basic scientist, the applied scientist, the policy evaluator, and the advocate. These roles are not mutually exclusive; a single psychologist may move between them across a career, or even within a single case. This paper identifies and describes each of the four roles and then illustrates how they appear in practice within law enforcement, corrections, and the court system.
The Four Roles of Psychologists in the Legal System
The basic scientist role is oriented toward knowledge for its own sake. Psychologists in this role conduct research intended to build a fundamental understanding of behavior relevant to the legal system, such as how memory, stress, or group dynamics function, without necessarily aiming to solve an immediate applied problem (Greene & Heilbrun, 2014). The applied scientist, by contrast, takes existing psychological knowledge and methods and directs them at a specific, practical problem within the legal system, such as evaluating a particular offender or screening a particular job candidate. The policy evaluator uses research and methodological skill to assess whether a program, intervention, or policy change is actually achieving its intended effect, providing evidence that can support or challenge existing practices. Finally, the advocate role involves psychologists using their expertise to argue for a particular position, reform, or outcome, whether on behalf of an individual client, a vulnerable population, or a broader policy change (Greene & Heilbrun, 2014). The following sections describe how these four roles appear across three environments: law enforcement, corrections, and the courts.
Law Enforcement
Within law enforcement, the applied scientist role is most visible in pre-employment psychological screening. Cochrane et al. (2003) found in a national survey of municipal police departments that the substantial majority of agencies required a psychological evaluation of applicants, most commonly using instruments such as the MMPI-2 alongside structured interviews, to identify candidates who are psychologically unsuited for policing before they are hired. This is a direct, practical application of assessment psychology to solve a specific organizational problem. The basic scientist role appears in police psychology when researchers study, for instance, the relationship between chronic occupational stress and long-term health or decision-making under threat, work that is not tied to any single department’s hiring decision but that gradually builds the knowledge base the applied scientist later draws on. Policy evaluators in law enforcement settings might be asked to determine whether a department’s crisis intervention team (CIT) training, designed to improve officer responses to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis, actually reduces use-of-force incidents or arrest rates for this population, comparing outcomes before and after implementation. Advocates in law enforcement often push in the other direction, using psychological evidence to argue for policy change, such as pressing a department to adopt evidence-based de-escalation training or expand access to confidential officer counseling, on the grounds that existing practices are not adequately supported by the psychological literature.
Corrections
In correctional settings, the applied scientist role centers on the assessment of individual offenders, most notably through structured risk assessment. Boothby and Clements (2000), in a national survey of correctional psychologists, found that assessment and treatment planning consumed a substantial share of psychologists’ time, alongside crisis intervention and, most heavily, administrative duties, reflecting how directly applied this role is within prison systems. The basic scientist role in corrections is reflected in research programs that study, for example, what personality or situational variables generally predict institutional misconduct or recidivism, work that later informs the actuarial risk instruments correctional psychologists use in individual cases. Policy evaluators in corrections are frequently tasked with determining whether a specific rehabilitative program, such as a cognitive-behavioral treatment curriculum for substance-involved offenders, actually reduces reoffending once released, often by comparing recidivism rates between program completers and a matched comparison group. The advocate role in corrections is exemplified by psychologists who argue, on the basis of clinical and research evidence, for expanded mental health treatment access for incarcerated individuals or against practices such as prolonged solitary confinement, using their professional standing to press for changes to institutional policy rather than simply describing an individual case.
Courts (Excluding Jury Selection)
Within the courts, the applied scientist role is perhaps best illustrated by competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. Rogers and Johansson-Love (2009) describe how forensic psychologists use standardized instruments, such as the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised, alongside clinical interviews to render a specific, case-based judgment about whether an individual defendant meets the legal standard for competence established in Dusky v. United States (1960). This is applied science in its clearest form: an established measure is directed at answering a single legal question about a single person. The basic scientist role in the courts is reflected in research that, for instance, examines error rates and reliability across competency instruments in general, work that does not evaluate any one defendant but instead builds the evidentiary foundation that makes such measures admissible in the first place (Rogers & Johansson-Love, 2009). Policy evaluators working with courts might assess whether a jurisdiction’s mental health court or veterans’ treatment court, which diverts eligible defendants into supervised treatment rather than traditional prosecution, produces lower recidivism or better clinical outcomes than the standard criminal docket. Advocates in the court system include psychologists who testify or write in support of expanding competency restoration services, or who argue for the availability of diversion programs for defendants with serious mental illness, using research evidence to press for systemic reform rather than confining themselves to a single evaluation.
Conclusion
Although the specific tasks differ substantially across law enforcement, corrections, and the courts, the same four underlying roles, basic scientist, applied scientist, policy evaluator, and advocate, recur throughout the criminal justice system. Understanding these roles clarifies that psychologists working in this system are rarely doing only one kind of work: the same professional who conducts a competency evaluation on Monday may be reviewing recidivism data on Tuesday and advocating for expanded diversion programs on Wednesday. Recognizing which role is in operation at a given moment helps clarify both the scope and the limits of what psychological expertise can appropriately contribute to a given legal decision.
References
Boothby, J. L., & Clements, C. B. (2000). A national survey of correctional psychologists. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(6), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027006003
Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803254586
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2014). Wrightsman’s psychology and law for the criminal justice system (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rogers, R., & Johansson-Love, J. (2009). Evaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 450–460.
